Welp we're screwed
 

Somehow I sensed this was the topic of this thread.

I'm so disappointed. I thought she'd hold out longer.

O'Connor steps down - nomination battle surely ahead
 

Well, I'm sure there will be many thoughts about this when Bush eventually nominates a replacement.

It will be interesting to see how the previous compromise on appellate court nominations come into play. I have a feeling that dems will probably try to paint almost any nominee as "an extreme circumstance", which is why I was against the previous compromise.

I will say something in light of recent decisions - I want someone who will interpret the constitution. Not look to foreign law. Not continue to expand the meaning of interstate commerce. Not expand imminent domain to allow the theft of private property to give to another for private use.

Should be interesting to watch and discuss.

This will be interesting. O'Connor was, especially recently, a swing vote on the court. If Bush has any sense of the concept of balance, he will try to find someone similarly moderate and balanced rather than someone who will push Bush's social agendas through. I may not have agreed with many of O'Connor's decissions, but at least she generally proved that she was thinking for herself.

yup

(though I conceed that Sca has a better title, and I wouldn't object to my thread being merged into this one).

Sadly, nominations have become all about what we think the person will push as far as a social agenda. It should not be that way.

Nominations should be about interpretting the constitution. Period. Is the person nominated qualified to do this?

In reference to some recent decisions, this has not what has been happening at all. Certain justices feel the need to look to foreign law for guidance. I think all here would agree that various clauses of the Constitution have been grossly misinterpretted lately. Thomas is very conservative, and I doubt he supports growing and using marijuana. He realizes (and I am still horribly disappointed with Scalia over this), however, that the case before them had nothing to do with interstate commerce. Several judges (again, disappointed with Kennedy) think it is acceptable to take my property and give it to some other private individual or corporation. Honestly, Souter, Ginsberg, and those who have ruled in the majority on these issues (particularly the private property case) have done more to set back our rights than at any other point in my lifetime, and perhaps even in history.

I want judges who know the constitution and care to take into consideration the intent of the framers. I doubt many of these recent decisions fit within that. The Constitution is not a living, breathing document. Sadly, the current court appears to be making it such by redefining emminent domain and further removing rights from the states. If it is living and breathing, then it is permissable to interpret the meaning based on the whims of the current justices, and nothing is sacred or protected.

Give me someone who will push their own personal social views to the side and rule based on the constitution itself. We can't take anyone else like Breyer who thinks we should look to foreign law to help us in deciding cases. I doubt many who think that it is not a problem would consider it such should we look to foreign law to help with decisions on abortion, since the US is one of only five countries (or so) that has basically no restrictions on it.

I can't agree entirely with that.

Firstly, I think the Constitution was left purposely vague so as to allow for its interpretation to evolve with time. Reviews of the various correspondance between the framers have revealed time and again much more precise and restrictive language being traded in private, almost all of which became vague and open to interpretation by the time it was integrated into the actual document. I think that was on purpose. After all, if we go strictly by what's in the document, and what was strictly meant by the terms they used, only white, male property owners would be guaranteed any rights at all. Certainly that was their initial intent, however, fortunately, they were smart enough to realize that their initial intent was clouded by the context of their own times and created a document that allowed us to expand its protection as our collective conscience grew.

As for looking to foreign law, I can't concede that it's entirely irrelevant. The Constitution is not all-encompassing. The Court has to make rulings on issues that are so drastically new and different than anything the original framers could possibly have imagined that not every answer can be contained within that document. While the intent and wording of the Constitution should certainly always be the first stop for a decission, when the simple ideals expressed their fail to provide enough guidance to decide and (especially) codify more complex issues, it pays to see what others in the world have done. An international dialog between the our Constitution and others is no threat to the document. When blazing new Constitutional territory, it pays to see the results of past attempts, even internationally, to help clarify the issue. It's not threat to our own Constitution to have a dialog with the world, as long as the results of that dialog are subsequently checked agains the Constitution.

I doubt that the Constitution will even be relevant to the nomination process. This is the opportunity the evangelical conservative Christian movement has been waiting for and one of their own gets to do the nominating. It won't be about their powers of interpretation. Like any other politician, it will be about what they're going to DO with their position.

Ha! As if Karl Rove would pass up this golden opportunity to distract the country away from Iraq. No, you can expect a scares-everybody-left-of-the-extreme-right nominee and an ugly battle where Democrats, and moderates, will be painted as "obstructionists" at every turn.

GD, the process that was left to allow the changing of the Constitution was the amendment process, not the judgement of the Supreme Court. In fact, it wasn't until 20 or so years after the Constitution was ratified that the Supreme Court declared themselves to be the final arbiters of what was constitutional in Marbury vs. Madison, which established judicial review.

What is vague about interstate commerce? What is vague about emminent domain? Do you believe that the founders intended emminent domain to be used to take property from one private entity to give to another? This court isn't simply interpretting something vague, they are changing the meaning. This is beyond dangerous.

I don't believe the Constitution to be vague in the least. Many who try to change the meaning have attempted to make it so, such as gun rights opponents trying to say that the right to keep and bear arms really doesn't mean the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, even though "the right of the people" in every other amendment refers to every person.

Heh.

Ev'body loves the chronic. Or Long Dong Silver. Or both.

Prudence and Sac - do you not think that it is also going to be an opportunity for the left to use scare tactics about how any conservative justice will erode their rights? I find that to be particularly humorous being that the recent decisions have been voted for and ruled in the affirmatived by primarily those justices seen as left leaning, like Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer. You didn't see those categorized as right leaning - specifically Scalia and Thomas - voting to drastically change the law on private property rights.

There will be huge amounts of politicing on both sides. Kennedy, Shumer, and all the usual dem suspects will be shouting from the rooftops how extreme the nominee is.

I read something funny this morning somewhere....can't racall where...it was something like this:

"Bush nominated George Washington to the Supreme Court today. Democrats immediately attacked his enviornmental record because of his cherry tree chopping incident."

No matter who is appointed, unless it's Al Gore or Bill Clinton, they going to be attacked as a religious zealot nut who threatens the very foundation of our democracy. It won't be Bush or Rove moving the attention away from Iraq - it will be the dems in their attacks doing so.

Thank God for Leo- because I can't say a word in the face of such alarmist fear mongering attitudes.

Considering that Bush has reportedly been consulting the Christian Legal Society regarding Court appointees...

I'm looking forward to it. I will engage in scare tactics at every turn.

Recent decisions have been disappointing, to say the least.

Um, 'cause the nominee will be extreme.

Dubya's not dumb enough to nominate a dead man. Or is he?

Don't you mean, "Thank Bush for Leo"? :p And I agree, Leo is a prince of a fellow.

Yep, it's gonna get ugly. But as for Leo's concerns ... I can't see how we can get much further from the real meaning of emminent domain or state's rights. Those things have been obliterated, and there's hardly much worse that can be done by any succeeding slate of Supremes.

Say true? I thought Bush had a direct line to the Man Upstairs...

Do you really consider it fear mongering to say that there is a very high chance the new justice WILL take away a womans right to choose? Think about it. Think about Bush and his views, his agendas. He's said time and time again he's pro-life, he's anti gay-rights and will appoint someone with these values. You think it's fear mongering and scare tactics when it's an almost certain that rights will be eroded? Do you honestly think that whoever Bush appoints will uphold R v. W and help allow people who are gay to have the right to marry (like 4 other countries that are appearing to be the new progression leaders)?

Ummm because almost anyone Bush will appoint will be a religious zealot nut who threatens the very foundation of our democracy. This country is getting dangerously close to becoming a Christian nation with all laws and rules based upon those beliefs, and screw anyone who believes differently.

YOu'd probably have to thank Reagan for me, but that's OK.

Love you, too, Sac.

Yes. I do. It's funny how the left frequently shouts about how the right better not use a litmus test when picking a nominee, but the left has their own litmus tests. What I want is for a judge to review the law as it exists. Frankly, regardless of what thinks about abortion, RvW is bad law.


The personal views of the judge should be completely out of the picture. What the confirmation process should be is to determine if the person is qualified to hold the position. Like it or not, Bush is in office. It is within his purview to nominate. If that person is qualified to hold the position, all views on both sides as to what their personal beliefs are are moot. Otherwise you have the litmus test. I have already been cringing when various conservatives have said they don't want Alberto Gonzales to be nominated because he's seen as pro-choice. While I'm not big on Gonzales, that's not the question. The question is whether the person is qualified.

And based on the recent decisions of the left leaning members of the court, I am far more afraid of left leaning judges taking away my rights. But you won't hear Kennedy or anyone talking about Souter or Ginsberg or how they took away private property rights.



Please refer to my last paragraph. I am not a one or two issue voter, and the nominee isn't about one or two issues to me. It's the whole enchilada.


I could offer many points as to why I disagree, but that would expand this debate far from the subject matter at hand.

Speaking for myself only:

I personally think those involved in recent majority decisions have lost their ever-lovin' minds.

(I probably score more libertarian than liberal on many issues. I was a conservative/Republican at one point in my life, then got tired of the enormous influence of the Moral Majority butting its nose into my personal business.)

But I don't think any of those issues will be relevant. I think the debate will focus almost exclusively on abortion. And regardless of my position on that issue, it's a sad day for American Jurisprudence when one's stance on abortion is the critical and deciding factor on one's worthiness to sit on the nation's highest court.

And if that were going to be the real life case we wouldn't be having this discussion. (and by we I mean you and I).

Were there calls for Clinton to appoint a conservative judge when he picked Ginsberg to replace the conservative leaning Byron White? I don't think so. Should he have to maintain the integrity and balance of the court as it existed? Ginsberg and Byron White have very little in common with the exception of pro-civil rights positions.

I would also argue that Breyer, the other Clinton appointee, who replaced a very libertarian Harry Blackmun, did not necessarily maintain the status quo that was there when he replaced him. I can almost promise that Blackmun would not have ruled in the same way as Breyer on the private property issue.

Presidents are elected. One thing Presidents do is to appoint judges. There is no requirement nor a moral obligation nor precedent that says he should appoint someone with a similar political leaning. Clinton did not, nor should he have been expected to.

In the ideal world, all our justices would be objective - but everything is driven by politics and competing ideology who use the Constitution only in as much as it advances their casue. I see this the same for democrate, conservatives, and any other party you name.

Bush could nominate Ted Kennedy himself, and Ted Kennedy, Shumer, and all the dems would respond automatically and without pause.............."Right wing nut, extreme and dangerous to our Constitution"

;)

Only after we offered them therapy and understanding.;)

Well now I know we are in good hands..........Roseannes Boss will be picking the nominee :D

Lovely. Another actor.

In fairness, he is also a lawyer and served on the Watergate Commission, as a special counsel to governors, and on other judicial selection committees.

Oh the angst. Republican....L&O actor....Republican.....L&O actor. Do I cheer or boo hiss?

Was Jesus unavailable?

Well, Rehnquist is supposedly handing in his resignation today. I have also heard speculation the ancient Stevens is also considering resigning.

While two vacancies at once is rare and hasn't happened in a long time, three would be unprecedented.

I heard Jon Kyl (one of my Az Senators) interviewed today locally. He serves on the Senate judiciary committee. He has said that various members of the committee are planning on presenting many hypothetical cases to nominees and demanding to know how they would rule. I honestly hope this does not happen, and any justice who would answer such questions would then either have to recuse him/herself from any similar case brought before the court or not answer the questions. In fact there are rules on the committee that nominees are not allowed to answer hypotheticals (or so I learned today) because any hypothetical cannot possibly present all facts that would be presented to the court.

One - big battle. Two - bigger battle. Three - armageddon.